In this interview, Brooke Siem, who is the author of a memoir on antidepressant withdrawal, May Cause Side Effects, interviews Gretchen LeFever Watson, PhD.
Gretchen is a developmental and clinical psychologist with postdoctoral training in pediatric psychology. She has served as a professor in multiple disciplines at universities and medical schools in the United States and abroad and as the patient safety director for a large healthcare system. She secured millions in federal funding to study the epidemiology of psychiatric drug use and to develop community-based strategies that reduce reliance on psychiatric labels and medicationsāstrategies that also improved educational outcomes.
In 2008, BMJ recognized her as one of 100 international scientists journalists could count on for unbiased reviews of health research. Dr. Watson is an academic affiliate at the University of South Carolina and the author of the Amazon bestseller Your Patient Safety Survival Guide: How to Protect Yourself and Others from Medical Errors. She lives in Virginia Beach and loves to windsurf.
The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity. Listen to the audio of the interview here.
Brooke Siem: Gretchen, I didnāt know you were recognized as one of 100 international scientists journalists can rely on for unbiased reviews of health research. That distinction is relevant because you earned it after a fascinating series of events surrounding your ADHD research. Could you share your background on ADHD research and what happened in the late ā90s and early 2000s?
Gretchen LeFever Watson: During the late ā90s through the mid-2000s, I was studying the prevalenceāor epidemiologyāof ADHD. What I found differed from what ADHD āexpertsā were saying. For instance, Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard and Dr. Russell Barkley claimed that too few children were diagnosed with ADHD and even fewer were medicated. They argued that undiagnosed or unmedicated ADHD put children at risk for negative outcomes, particularly later substance abuse disorders.
I was seeing something very different. I took a job in a pediatric department in San Diego right out of graduate school, and I was part of a multidisciplinary team that assessed children for all kinds of learning, behavioral, and school problems. I was there for three and a half years and we almost never diagnosed a child with ADHD. The few times we did it was because people were insisting there was a problem, and we could find no other explanation for the children’s difficulties.
Siem: Roughly what year was this?
LeFever Watson: This was the early ā90s through 1993. A year later, the pediatrician heading our team was recruited to Virginia to open a new neurodevelopmental center. He invited me to join his team there, and we set up a similar multidisciplinary assessment clinic in Virginia Beach.
Siem: What is a multidisciplinary assessment?
LeFever Watson: Itās when a child is evaluated by a team of specialists, such as developmental pediatricians, psychologists, educators, speech pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and social workers. Each specialist conducts independent assessments, and then we collaborate to determine whatās going on with the child and how to help them and their family succeed.
In San Diego, this approach was very successful. But in Virginia Beach, all of a sudden, the developmental pediatricians were diagnosing lots of kids with ADHD. I kept questioning these diagnoses, saying, āI donāt see it. Where is this coming from?ā
So, I reviewed our clinicās first 188 consecutive casesāand over 75% of the children were diagnosed with ADHD. My colleagues claimed it was a referral bias, saying we were seeing a backlog of undiagnosed cases in the region. But ADHD diagnoses were everywhereāmy daughterās kindergarten classmates, cocktail party discussionsāit didnāt make sense. A supportive pediatrician encouraged me to write a research proposal, so I did.
We had an incredible opportunity where the school nurses in the five districts in Southeastern Virginia collaborated with me on that study because they were concerned that too many kids were on Ritalin and Adderall..
Siem: How many students were included?
LeFever Watson: Roughly 85,000 in one district and 15,000 to 30,000 in another. This was a massive study using a very conservative method. The child had to be taking medication for ADHD in the middle of the day from a school nurse, and they had to have a note from a physician stating this is medication for ADHD. Any child who didn’t need a midday dose but took medication at home before coming to school was not counted in our sample. We also excluded all students who were in full-time special education classes because we knew many of them were diagnosed with ADHD, and we wanted to make sure we didn’t in any way overestimate the prevalence.
When I got that data, 8% to 10% of the children in grades 2 through 5 had been diagnosed and medicated during regular school hours. That might not sound like a lot, but at the time, the ADHD experts were saying only about 3% of the kids were diagnosed and only half of them got the medication. That might have been what was happening in some places, and it might have been the national average at the time, but it was not what was happening in Virginia.
We looked at this issue repeatedly. We did serial epidemiologic studies using different methodologies and kept getting the same results. When we looked at children diagnosed but not captured by school health records, the numbers doubled. The rate was much higher among boys than girls, and much higher among white students than Black students. If we looked at the most affected groupāwhite boysā33% of them were diagnosed with ADHD. When I looked at the medication they were on, 28% of them were on two different types of psychotropics simultaneously, usually a stimulant and an antidepressant. Eight percent were on three different types of psychotropics, and 1% were on four. This was elementary school children before the ADHD craze really took off.
The more I kept producing data that challenged the narrative that too few children are diagnosed and medicated, the more I came under attack. It’s funnyāwhen this all started, I was painfully shy. I never would have gone into any of this if I knew it was going to attract media attention. Back then, I just wanted to be a flower on the wallpaper and was not looking to do anything controversial. I just wanted straight answers to make sense of what I was seeing.Ā But it did work me out of my shyness.
When I didn’t back down, the nastiness intensified. Ultimately, Barkley published a paper calling for an investigation of me, implying that I’d done something wrong. Within days or weeks of that, my medical school also received an anonymous complaint that I had fabricated my data to suit an anti-medication agenda, and then we were off to the races.
Siem: And when were you cleared of all wrongdoing?
LeFever Watson: In 2006. For two years, my research was put on hold. If you have an active grant with federal funding and you do nothing on your grant for two years, you lose your grant funding.
Siem: What I find interesting is that you were the child psychologist in the room but it was the pediatricians who were diagnosing ADHD, not the child psychologist.
LeFever Watson: The lead developmental pediatrician basically said, āIf we don’t diagnose them, there will be no reason for the community pediatricians to refer patients to me. They’ll just refer them straight to you.ā He was worried, in part, that his contribution to the multidisciplinary evaluation might not be necessary.
The way another pediatrician explained it to meāand this is an exaggeration, of courseābut your general pediatrician sees a lot of runny noses and earaches. They don’t see a lot of really interesting cases because pediatrics, like other parts of medicine, has become so specialized. You have pediatric cardiologists, endocrinologists, and so on. He said the general pediatrician wants to maintain control over ADHD because it’s new and interesting. It’s a pain to deal with, but it gives general pediatrics some level of importance, so there was a turf battle going on between general pediatricians and developmental pediatricians. There was money at stake.
Siem: What made you realize that this might be a problem?
LeFever Watson: I had the luxury of seeing both very young children and seeing children for repeated evaluations. I saw things like a two-year-oldāa two-year old!ādiagnosed with ADHD and put on medication for the condition. The parent came back because she was worried. Her child wasn’t acting up anymore, but he didn’t seem himself. I was mortified. I did an evaluation and said, āI don’t think he’s hearing well. Have you had his hearing tested?ā It turned out he had a chronic problem with fluid in his ears and had some hearing loss. They addressed that and it turned out he didn’t āneedā the ADHD medication.
Multiple times, I referred children back to the neurologist because the child was having petit mal seizures, not ADHD. How many kids were suffering from petit mal seizures that were being interpreted as ADHD? How were people missing this?
Siem: How did the pediatricians square the fact that there’s no real legitimate test for ADHD and that it’s just a collection of symptoms? It seems to fly directly in the face of medicine.
LeFever Watson: You have to do a careful developmental history to diagnose properly. Recently, I was watching a prominent Hollywood doctor on a well-known YouTube channel. This psychiatrist was explaining how we have brain scans that can help us diagnose ADHD accurately. He emphasized that if we diagnose children accurately, they won’t be at risk for developing substance abuse from their stimulants. But I’m not sure anyone picked up on his clarification, when he said, “A critical part of the diagnosis is a careful developmental history.”
Brain scans don’t diagnose ADHD. When you have this doctor with clinics all around the country, who’s made billions of dollars doing brain scans, people want what he’s selling. They definitely want to make sure they get these brain scan assessments so they don’t end up giving their child a medication they shouldn’t have. If he says they have ADHD based on the brain scan, they feel reassured and think they don’t have to worry about addiction to a highly addictive drug.
Siem: I get why people are drawn to this because it seems like it solves their problem. But we’ve become terrible at critical and long-term thinking.
LeFever Watson: For most people, the drug “works” initially and makes people feel good. Not always as much with young children as with adults, but it will subdue their behavior. What I saw clinically happen over and over was that a child would go on the medicationāa stimulantāand they would behave better for a while, so the parents would think, “Oh, the child really does have ADHD.” Then they would adjust the medication level, upping the dose, and go through this cycle. Eventually, the child would be unable to manage that kind of dose. Then the parents would think, “Maybe he doesn’t need the medication anymore,” and they would try stopping it.
The kids would get irritable and cranky, and the parents would say, “Oh, he really does need his medication,” and put them back on it. Then I’d watch them go from the stimulant to an antidepressant, to a combination, to mood stabilizers, toābefore you know itāan antipsychotic. That was happening by 2000 with a disturbing level of frequency in Southeastern Virginia. Now that’s happening all over the country with lots of kids.
If I had come out of graduate school and my first job was here in Virginia doing what I was doing, I might not have realized how wrong it was. But it was such a contrast to working in a setting where money was not on the table because everything in San Diego was covered as part of military benefits. There was no billing paperwork to submit.
My postdoctoral training was the same thing. It was at a government-funded program at Georgetown University. We were incentivized to do what was right for the children, not anything beyond what they needed. Those contrasts helped me understand how perverse the whole thing was.
Siem: You mentioned early on that some researchers claimed undiagnosed ADHD would lead to substance abuse. Where did that data even come from? Are you telling me there are actually long-term studies following people in the psychiatric world? Because that’s not something I come across very often.
LeFever Watson: Oh, Brooke, this shook my world at the time. Joseph Biederman, now deceased, was a Harvard child psychiatrist often called the father of pediatric psychopharmacology. He and his colleagues published a paper in 1999 in Pediatrics, the journal that most influences clinical practice for treating children in this country. The study got incredible media attention. The abstract described it as a large study, and the title claimed early ADHD treatment prevents later substance abuse. It was everywhere in the news, so I wanted to review the study myself. When I did, I was dumbfounded.
First, it was a very small and poorly designed study. To get the results they wanted, they manipulated the data using a statistical method I had never encountered. I asked a PhD biostatistician about it, and she said it was a statistic used to study how metal bends when building bridges. What does that have to do with this study? I had no idea. Yet, it was this statistical method that produced their result. One of the critical data sets involved just 19 kids. The entire study only included 137 children, yet nearly every newspaper in the country reported that early ADHD drug treatment prevents later substance abuse. The media kept citing it for years.
If you or I submitted that paper to any halfway reputable journal, it would have been rejected. But this was Joseph Biederman, the father of child psychopharmacology. People assumed he must know what he was talking about.
When I published my first major study in the American Journal of Public Health, it gained national attention. Before that, I submitted it to Pediatrics or a similar major pediatric journal. It received favorable reviews from all three reviewers, but two recommended rejection. Why? The paper suggested Ritalin was being overused, and the editor rejected it because they didnāt like the message. My study involved 30,000 subjects with rigorous and conservative methods, compared to their 137, yet it was dismissed.
That was a rude awakening for me as a young academicāto realize such a prestigious medical journal could reject robust research simply because it challenged their preferred narrative.
Siem: It’s why I get frustrated when people beat the drum of “believe the science.” I almost married a PhD specializing in environmental politics, and I was shocked at the amount of corruption, academic incest, collusion, pettiness, and backstabbing in a soft science like environmental politics. Now, I see it when I pull back the curtain on medical research. I love science as much as anybody else, but that does not mean that there are not bad actors and that all is not what it seems, even if it ends up in a major journal.
LeFever Watson: I like to think that the percent of bad actors is really small. What happens is there are a lot of people who aren’t as well-educated in scientific methodology as we presume. Itās you put a few bad actors with some people who might have some weaknesses in critical areas of research and analysis, you get what we have now.
Siem: Then combine that with a world that’s increasingly more difficult to exist in, and it all just feels like a solution somehow.
LeFever Watson: There was an article in The Wall Street Journal recently about how many investment bankers in New York City are abusing stimulants to manage their 90-hour workweeks. The article mentioned a local doctor by name. These bankers go to him, he maxes them out on Adderall, then tops it off with Vyvanse. This way, he doesnāt technically exceed the recommended dosage for one drug, but he prescribes multiple stimulants. Now, heās also running an addiction clinic out of the same office because many of his patients, unsurprisingly, are getting addicted to these highly addictive substances.
Siem: The shift to adult ADHD is fascinating. I hear from people who were diagnosed with depression and put on antidepressants. Maybe they got off them or went through withdrawal. But so often, the conclusion is, “Actually, I have adult ADHD, and now Iām medicated for that, and everythingās fine!”
LeFever Watson: Yeah, well, think about it. Youāre coming off an antidepressant, which doesnāt always feel good. If youāve struggled with withdrawalāantidepressants have stimulating properties, right?āyour brain is readjusting. Then someone gives you a stimulant, and of course, you feel better. People think, “Wow, if Iām responding to this stimulant, I must have the disorder itās treating.” Itās like saying, “The aspirin helped my headache, so I must have aspirin deficiency disorder.” Psychiatry has done an incredible job convincing the public that mental health disorders are real medical diseases. When I say that, people look at me like Iām out of touch. But no, Iām pretty up to date. I think theyāre just buying whatās being sold.
Siem: Because we want to. We just want that easy solution.
LeFever Watson: Did you see the Department of Justice reached a deal with Cerebral? Thatās the online company that hired Simone Biles, the gymnast and ADHD advocate. They popped up during the pandemic, took off, and were valued at $4 billion in just two years. They got caught pressuring their clinicians to diagnose ADHD and ensure 100% of their patients with uncomplicated ADHD were prescribed a stimulant.
Siem: Which basically makes them a pill mill.
LeFever Watson: Itās legal drug dealing. They had to pay what seems like a relatively small fine and agree not to write prescriptions for Schedule II drugs in the future.
Siem: If weāve established thereās no real research showing untreated ADHD leads to substance abuse, what do we know about the long-term effects for kids diagnosed and medicated at a young age?
LeFever Watson: There are lots of different outcomes. Some kids go on medication for a while, then reject it on their own and do fine. More often, kids stay on it long-term, leading to a cascade of prescriptions and diagnoses. Staying on a stimulant for a long time puts you at risk for depression. While the medication gives a lift initially, thereās a point where adverse effects outweigh the benefits. Itās a predictable curveāit will almost always happenābut the timing varies by individual.
When we look at middle school, high school, and college students on stimulants for ADHD, theyāre at a much higher risk of abusing their prescriptions. For the past 20 years, stimulant misuse, abuse, and addiction have worsened every year. A great study even showed that the percentage of students diagnosed and medicated in a school predicts prescription drug abuse among all students in that school.
Some people donāt experience adverse effects, but the DEA has said since 1995 that this is a highly addictive class of medications. Recently, the FDA issued new black box warnings for all stimulants. While people donāt always pay attention to these warnings, at least theyāre there. It helps us educate those who are open to learning that these medications carry a high risk of addiction. Why would you put your child on that if itās not absolutely necessary?
Siem: Iād love to end on a more positive note. Letās talk about what youāve learned about managing ADHD without medication.
LeFever Watson: We had a great opportunity, thanks to funding from the US Department of Education, to train teachers to manage behavior in the classroom. It was a tough sell at first. Teachers were understandably grumpy, thinking, “Who are these psychologists coming into our classroom, making us sit in training, and telling us how to run things?” I sympathized with that.
We conducted pre- and post-assessments of what the teachers understood and taught them techniques like using positive reinforcement frequently, catching kids being good, and using punitive interventions sparingly. One intervention we discussed was timeout. Almost all the teachersā96%āsaid they used timeout, but it didnāt work.
We realized that timeout, like many effective behavioral interventions, sounds simple but is easy to do wrong. We visited every classroom and asked the teachers to show us their timeout spots and how they used them. About 95% were using timeout incorrectly. We explained that the timeout spot needs to be somewhere the teacher can monitor the student but where the student loses all social connection with their peers. Kids really donāt like losing that connection. We literally moved file cabinets and rearranged classrooms to create functional timeout spots. That small adjustment gained us traction with the teachers.
The real breakthrough came when I said, “Weāre telling teachers to give their students positive feedback, so maybe we should give the teachers positive feedback.” I had the research assistants stay in the classrooms until they observed something specific and genuine to praise. They wrote positive notes and put them in the teachersā mailboxes. This had a magical effectāteachers became more open to implementing the interventions.
From the beginning to the end of the year, we saw a 70% reduction in discipline referrals compared to the previous year. ADHD symptoms in classrooms using Positive Behavior Management decreased [under our training], while they increased in other classrooms [without our training.] Academic scores also improved. Students in classrooms using these techniques scored significantly higher in every subject area on standardized tests. These results were highly significant and consistent across all subjects, demonstrating the real impact of these methods. This success helped teachers see that these approaches make a difference.
Siem: You identified four key gaps around ADHD: behavior management, school-provider communication, teacher training and education, and parent training. Children arenāt on that list. What does that say?
LeFever Watson: I hadnāt even noticed that, Brooke. Thank you. The problem isnāt the kids. ADHD places the problem in the child, but the kids arenāt the problem. Theyāre simply trying to adapt to their environment with what they bring to the table.
As a child psychologist, I avoided working directly with children as much as possible because, even if I did therapy with a child, theyād have to return to the same parents and teachers. Itās far more effective to help teachers and parents change their understanding of the child and what the child needs, rather than telling the child thereās something wrong with them. That was always our strategy.
The parenting program stemmed from the fact that parents need these basic skills, but nobody wants to go to a parenting class. Who goes to a parenting class? The perfect mom who’s going to show up and show everybody that she’s already doing everything right? Or the Child Protective Services parent who’s forced to go if they want to get their kids back? It’s just a bad setup altogether. We decided not to call this a parenting program.
We worked on the name and came up with A Plus Behavior: Helping Your Student Excel in School and at Home. We delivered basic parent training without ever mentioning āparentingā or making the parents feel like it was about fixing something wrong in them.
Parents loved it. One hundred percent who signed up wanted more, so we developed an advanced set of classes. The teachers said, āCan you run one of those classes for us? Can you run it at my child’s school so I can participate as a parent, not a teacher?ā People just ate it up. It’s just basic information that’s really helpful, and no child needs to be pathologized to learn how to make their lives better.
Siem: Is that information available anywhere anymore?
LeFever Watson: This was probably one of the most disheartening things about having my research shut down. That program was so well received by teachers that we were able to get the school superintendents from five different school districts to agree to allow their school psychologists and school counselors to get trained in it. Every elementary school across this huge area of Southeastern Virginia would offer this basic training. We were ready to run our last train-the-trainer session when I got a phone call saying, “You will be fired if you finish that training.” It all stopped.
Siem: I wanted to ask you a question, and then I got a little scared. Is ADHD real?
LeFever Watson: I think we have to find a way to explain to people that just because we put a name on a set of behaviors and claim that it’s linked to a brain disorder, doesn’t mean that it is. To this day, after five decades of this work, we have no evidence that it’s a brain disorder per se. We have one of the fathers of ADHD, Keith Connors, saying before he died that it’s a fabricated disorder. Heās the person who put ADHD on the map. Have I ever told you about this?
Siem: No.
LeFever Watson: Keith Connors was working with another prominent psychiatrist at Harvard, and they were doing studies to look at the effect of methylphenidate on children who had an early version of what we now call ADHD. They were approached by one of the drug companies that made stimulants and said, “Hey, how about if we turn your research instrument into a behavioral rating scale that can be used to diagnose kids?” The rest is history. Connors made a name and millions and millions of dollars by continually updating the Connors Behavior Rating Scale, which became the most widely used rating scale for diagnosing ADHD.
But, at the end of their days, both Keith Connors and the psychiatrist who he was working with publicly confessed that it was a fabricated diagnosis. Connors said it’s a concoction used to justify giving out medication, period. His exact quote is just chilling.
Siem: Thank you so much for being here with us today, Gretchen. Where can the world find you?
LeFever Watson: People can always email me. My email is out there. They can find me by going to drgretchenwatson.com. Happy to keep helping people make sense of how we’ve been fooled about these diagnoses and how medications will fix them.
Siem: Thank you so much for all your work. Keep going.
**
Unspoiled children ARE health, for the same reason unspoiled nature is health – freedom of the nature produces health. Conformity of the nature to a total social historical system blind to it’s needs is disease. You seem like a very nice and insightful human being but I’d like to blow away the academic cobwebs of your mind and see you launch into a blistering rage and naturally transcend the ossified computer brains you’re trying to appeal too. It’s punk rockers and prostitutes are the ones we should be addressing ourselves to, not because we want them to listen but because we want to grasp them with our words, them being human reality, not academic theories about that reality. Anyway, I got beaten up last night and I can’t remember who by. And I’ve got broken bones again! I’m getting to be an expert at this. Funny how I was just talking about this on MIA the other day. I’m too reluctant to go to the hospital on my own because of blind judgement by people invariably less perceptive then me. I got refused alcohol today which I was going to buy as a temporary pain killer because they said they thought I was drunk. No, I had a black eye – I was not drunk at all, but black eye plus buying alcohol means I must be drunk. When I pointed out that I was sober they still refused to serve me for being argumentative! I bet you think I am exaggerating or joking – I am not. See how our brains are scrambled by judgement and association. [edited by moderator]
Report comment
Great interview.
For my interview with the illustrious Dr. Watson, see my book: https://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Pills-ADHD-Medicalization-Childhood/dp/1989963242/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Report comment
I am getting dulled to the content of these articles – the level of dishonesty and callousness is hard to grasp. Ultimately I have to say that I think it’s got something to do with the adulation of making a buck that is the foundation of the US and to that all else is subordinated. Ultimately I think the US is a pretty feral country morally (not that where I am is much better). Otherwise why would the Star D scandal not have been more widely publicized.
I don’t have a high opinion of the psychologists I had dealings with but this woman appears to be a rare bird among her species.
Report comment
“… no child needs to be pathologized to learn how to make their lives better.”
The same goes for adults.
Report comment
If Robert Kennedy becomes Health Secretary, maybe he could shake things up a little here. We need a “Mad Man Theory’ approach to the overmedication issue. Kick Big Pharma and Big Medicine in the nuts!….let’s live in hope. (We could do with a RFK here in Ireland as health Minister)
Report comment
What a stunning revelation of the corporate medical system in the U. S. Thanks for ‘pulling back the curtain’. I can’t imagine how my family’s lives could have been different if we had been seen and heard by compassionate and helpful professionals. Instead of contributing to repeated, generations of trauma, I think the cycle could have been broken. We must resist labeling people wherever and whenever we can. This fingerpointing is what demonizes others seeking help. Thank you for this excellent piece.
Report comment
“We must resist labeling people wherever and whenever we can.”
Yes!!! Medically labeling emotionally distressed people creates more problems than it solves.
Report comment
There was a time, not long ago, that I would have been outraged by the content of this interview. That time has passed; Iām all out of rage. In fact, I actually find such narratives surrounding the moral and intellectual bankruptcy-and default virtue hoarding- of our institutional PMC, rather schadenfreude-satisfying. Iāve come to embrace their nihilism as they demolish their historical roles and positions in our societies-however tragically they also destroy anything and anyone that gets in their way (truth, principles, vulnerability, honor, the sacred, et al). To put an ounce of faith in our PMC, especially in the mental health sectors, is a hopeless gesture appealing to nothing beyond theyāre intellectual hypocrisies, moral cowardice, and bourgeois vanities-as entitled privileges. Look to them for honorable relationships at your own peril.
Iāll just add a passage from the formidable Iain McGilchrist, as quoted from āThe Matter With Thingsā-one of hundreds from which are appropriate here:
āThe left hemisphere raison d’ĆŖtre being power and control, it naturally puts values of utility of hedonism, those of the lowest rankā¦ first. I may be wrong, but it is my distinct impression that there has been a decline in courage, loyalty and humility in our society-indeed in all behaviors that carries its cost upfront, rather than concealing its sting in the tail; speaking the truth takes courage, and it would seem that in those institutions of government, science would rather conform rather than confront untruth. The powerhouse of intellect, the universities, have lost their nerve, and become passive, conformist and feeble-and excessively bureaucraticā¦And along with the courage to speak of courage to speak the truth, there has been an undeniable withdrawal from the beautiful and sacred (and I, Kevin Smith, would add, into systems of power as various forms of compensationā¦).
Report comment
Well, there’s one child psychologist who knows the score.
But all she’s got in her toolkit is behavior management? I think maybe this used to be called “teaching good manners” or something like that.
Of course this interview focused on ADHD, one of many psychiatric scams leveled at the general public that has ruined many lives. But there are some kids (and goodness knows, parents) who have real problems and could use some more robust assistance.
What about them?
Report comment
Excellent article about the overuse of prescription drugs and the underlying problems in our society that lead to drug addiction. The American people deserve better, and I sincerely hope the future is brighter for all Americans.
Report comment